Democracy and the Athenians (Massolit course)

Solon

Solon was an Ancient Greek best known for his career as a politician and lawmaker, whose laws set the foundation for Athenian democracy. We get most of our information about his life from Aristotle’s Constitution of the Athenians and Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. He is briefly mentioned in Herodotus’ Histories as coming to King Croesus, who asks him who the happiest man on the earth is; an interesting conversation ensues, but the story is most likely fictional. In fact, most of what available sources have to say about Solon is probably fictitious, and scholars sometimes have difficulty defining what is true about him and what is not.

We can be absolutely sure that he was an Athenian statesman whose opinions were instrumental in establishing democracy in Athens. While he did not exactly encourage precise societal equality, he advocated absolute fairness and was responsible for the distribution of property among the Athenian citizens. He built more law courts and established more formal rules over who could prosecute whom and for what. Prior to Solon’s interventions, Athens had been an unruly and somewhat disorganised state, where lawlessness and oppression of the poor and overworked prevailed; Solon’s law code brought justice, equality, and order to the Greek polis.

Cleisthenes

Cleisthenes succeeded the tyrant Hippias after overthrowing him in the late 6th century. The policies which he posed to the Athenians were rather complicated and certainly very novel, which makes one wonder why the Athenians chose to vote him in. It seems, though, that they were happy with anyone who didn’t pose the danger of further tyranny, and so approved of Cleisthenes’ democratic views simply for the sake of not approving of tyrannic ones.

Cleisthenes’ main policy was that every town in Attica, no matter how tiny, would have to produce a certain number of representatives to be present at the Council of 500. The population of each village was taken and a quota of representatives tailored to the village’s size was given. This ensured that even the smallest of hamlets had a say in Athenian politics, and that no one individual had complete power over anyone.

Radical democracy

In the 5th century, democratic political proceedings began to quickly escalate. In the 480s BC, the election process for Athenian chief magistrates changed: instead of being elected into power, the candidates’ names were put into a hat, and lots were drawn. This raises an interesting political question: is this new approach – drawing lots – more or actually less democratic than being elected into power? My first thought was no, and I wondered how this change could be the first step towards Athenian democracy. Then I considered how democratic elections really are. Are we electing in the best leaders, or the best liars? The best politicians, or the best promisers? The men most of their word, or the most convincing orators? Selecting magistrates or other political figures by lots is arguably even more democratic than the typical election system, as it is completely randomised and unbiased.

Another important step in the development of Athenian democracy were the political actions of Ephialtes, who most famously restricted the Court of Areopagus (a council composed of former archons) to having a range of judicial responsibilities centred around homicide and some religious cases.

The Court and Assembly

By 415 BC, democracy was beginning to settle in Ancient Athens. Every Athenian male citizen, regardless of wealth or social standing, was able to take anyone who might have wronged him to court. If, for some reason, the court was unable to help, the citizen might appeal to the ekklesia, or assembly, for a less formal hearing. The Council of 500 would then decide whose matters needed to be dealt with most urgently.

Mass Participation and Political Expertise

By the year 430 BC, Athens was a polis with a population of around 300,000. This number posed a major administrative task to the leaders of the city. By this time – this far into the beginnings of demokratia – generals were the only people of outstanding political power. Otherwise, the Athenians essentially ruled themselves.

Although for the most part democracy was clearly the best political system for 5th century Athens, it had its drawbacks. While every adult male citizen would have some form of political experience – be that a role in the local ekklesia or on the Council of 500 – this meant that every political occupation would be filled by a politically inexperienced person, as any random Athenian, regardless of education, social standing or prior political experience, would have a say in practically every matter.

The Law-Court

In Ancient Athens, there was no police force. There were also no lawyers and no public prosecutors: only individual prosecutors accusing other individuals, who had to speak for themselves without the help of an attorney. Juries in the 5th century were a great deal larger than modern ones; some ancient juries have even been recorded as having over 6,000 jurors. Another interesting point as regards Athenian juries is that there was no discussion between jurors before the verdict: they simply listened to the prosecutor’s side of the story, then the defendant’s, and made their verdict secretly. In contrast, in the ekklesia (assembly), people voted by raising their hand, so they could see who else had voted similarly. In the law-court, all decisions remained secret even after the majority verdict was revealed.

The Strength of Athenian Democracy in Practice

Attending the ekklesia was not an obligatory duty, but an encouraged yet optional one. In practice, this actually meant that more people chose not to attend the assembly than those who did, for a price had to be paid for going: a day off work, which meant no income, which meant no food. Only those whose political views were so extreme and therefore mattered so urgently to them would attend the ekklesia. When these citizens went, they tended to leave things that needed repairing or other jobs that needed to be done with the lower working class while they were out. If this lower class decided to attend the ekklesia as well, they would miss out on the best source of income they had by neglecting the jobs left to them by richer assembly-goers.

Professor Robin Osborne of Cambridge University argues that the only thing that made it possible for democracy to be maintained in Athens was the sheer diversity of the Athenian population. Notable differences in class, career, religion or political opinion meant that should any one individual or interest group start dominating politics, protests and uprisings by a number of varying groups would ensure its immediate downfall and the reinstatement of democracy.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *